The AR-15, a weapon that women and children
can employ to defend themselves as easily as
any adult man, and we will not surrender ours
to any foreign invader, to you, or to Congress.
“It’s a weapon designed to inflict maximum damage”
by Vin Suprynowicz
Special to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise
I believe I hear the fellow from CNN (who appears to close his eyes while firing) saying of the AR-15 “It’s a weapon designed to inflict maximum damage,” here:
Really? One reason they adopted the .223 is that troops can carry more ammo because it’s lighter, of course. But I seem to remember reading, long ago, that the .223 round was also chosen in part because it’s more likely to WOUND (see dead vs. wounded stats at any “mass shooting,” let alone any combat engagement), and a wounded man will take three enemy out of action, since it takes two guys to haul the casualty back to the aid station.
I wonder how much trouble it would be for someone to put together a “reply” video (shot outdoors, not at a 50-yard indoor range):
“They want to ban the civilian, semi-auto AR-15 because CNN reports it’s ‘designed to inflict maximum damage. ’ OK, let’s examine these three cartridges: This is the .223 developed in the 1960s and used in an AR-15 (second from right, above, next to the Russian short.) This is the NATO .308 that was standard way back in the 1950s (third from left.) And this (far left) is the .50-caliber Browning, developed more than a century ago. Now let’s see what each of these rounds does to those three watermelons out there. First, three rounds of .223 at 60 yards — and it’s a good thing we’re not firing through sawgrass, by the way, since that’s known to deflect these little slugs. OK, I see some entrance holes, and the size of the exit holes are going to vary considerably depending on whether I’m using a metal-jacketed or a soft-point round. Not saying I’m about the volunteer to get shot with this thing, mind you, it’s certainly a dangerous firearm. But we’re examining the claim that the AR-15 is ‘designed to inflict maximum damage.’
“Now, three rounds of .308 from this 1950s-era M-1A into the second watermelon, at 100 yards. Mind you, this M-1A is effective to about half a mile, and these rifles are common and perfectly legal. Again, a soft-point hunting round would almost certainly cause larger exit holes than a metal-jacketed military surplus round. Let’s compare the visible damage from the .308 as compared to the .223, which is supposedly ‘ designed to inflict maximum damage.’
And now, a single round from this civilian-legal, semi-auto Barrett Model 82 in 50-caliber Browning, into that watermelon WAAYY out there are 200 yards…. Wow. I’m afraid we’re going to need a new watermelon.
“Folks, the .50-caliber doesn’t just destroy people, it destroys motor vehicles. A dozen rounds can bring down a fighter aircraft, which is why our B-17s used to carry at least half-a-dozen guns firing this round. And this round and this rifle are perfectly legal, which will be a very good thing when the day comes that we ever need to defend this country.
But what can we say, now, about folks who want to ban the AR-15 — or prevent 19-year-old Marines or 20-year-old police officers from practicing their marksmanship with it on weekends — because its little 22-caliber bullet is “designed to inflict maximum damage”?
“Maximum damage” compared to what? Are they really that ignorant …or are they just hoping to fool a few million urban voters who actually know little or nothing about modern firearms …and can’t be bothered to learn?”
Reprinted from Vin's Blog February 28th, 2018.
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)